Wakefield (2016) User Reviews (136)

Could have been more interesting

[barbagvido · 6/10 · 6 November 2017]

Wakefield is a film starring Bryan Cranston as the man who hides in a garage for months looking at the events in his house and everyone thinking he's missing. Basically, he's looking at his life without him.

It's an interesting premise on it's own, but the movie never really does anything about that and the plot barely goes anywhere through the entire movie. And yeah, don't expect much of a resolution at the end. This is something that works on paper, but doesn't translate to the screen very well. One of the biggest problems is also a lack of interesting and creative direction. If a director made it stranger and more unique, it would have been a lot more interesting. This way, it just doesn't stick out. But still, it's filled with powerful performances, especially from Bryan Cranston, who never fails to impress and pretty much carries the entire movie with his performance and he might be one of the few reasons it wasn't completely uninteresting. The premise itself, a few interesting but not memorable enough moments and the premise are what saves this movie from being bad. But it's not particularly good either.

While the run-time isn't long the movie is longer than it should be and by the last third the end can't come soon enough. Only watch if you're a big fan of Cranston. Other than that, you won't find much here.

Premise is interesting, as are some parts, but, the whole - not so much

[srdjan_veljkovic · 5/10 · 7 September 2017]

Even in the movie, the obvious is stated: who hasn't had a thought about leaving their life and watching how people from that life react to them being gone missing? This movie explores that scenario. It's somewhat original, so, it's interesting.

The exploration has some interesting parts. Jenifer Garner is well cast as the wife whom the main character "kind of loves", but is also "sick and tired of her". Also, the whole projection that the protagonist has on his wife as "his main problem", which she clearly isn't, is interesting. Sure, she's far from perfect, but, so is he and it's obvious that he actually "did good, wife-wise" (in the sense that he could have done _much_ worse).

Also, the notion that he just goes on with his exile without having any good reason to, other than inertia, is interesting.

But, otherwise, it's not well put together, very little is deeply explored, there's not much fun or dread of all of this - while there can/should be.

The main problem is probably the ending. Sure, the "let the viewer think/imagine what might happen" ending can work. But, it needs to be done differently, especially with a movie as-is. Basically, the ending doesn't fit the movie at all. If we had more deep explorations, sure, this could work. But, as-is, movie is too shallow for such an ending.

Out of all the possible great or decent endings, they picked the only worst one.

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 5/10 · 28 July 2017]

What a let down in the writing department. Did the brain juices run dry in the last 5 minutes of this film?

Aside from the very slow pace, this film of 1:46 should have been edited and cut down to about 1:20-1:25.

Now back to the writing; Director and writer Robin Swicord did an outstanding job in the directing - very visually masterful and well put together. The writing was outstanding - until the ending. To put it in simple terms, she attacked and challenged your senses, intellect and sensibility, and then flushed it all down the toilet with the worst (and laziest) ending possible. Very insulting.

Here's an idea: what if he walked in and he was invisible i.e. he died in the train (crash) that led to the black-out. There are so many better endings this film could have had, but instead, Robin Swicord picked the worst (and laziest) possible ending. Yes, I had to say it again... it was that dumb and made me feel that I wasted investing my time from the start in looking forward to a great (at least a decent) ending. Nope. The exciting roller coaster ride ended at the kids basket weaving class.

It even makes me feel sour at Bryan Cranston's outstanding performance, wasted with that infantile ending dialogue. The success of a film is how you feel when you leave the theater. This left me feeling mad - and it wasn't an angry movie. Even with the slow place (of which I hate) that I put up with, I still had a smile on my face most of the time with Cranston's humor and brilliant performance, and was thoroughly getting right into the film anticipating a grand finale. I had already rated this prematurely as an 8-9/10, until the ending. Because of that fail, it's only a 5/10. What a waste a a potentially great film... shame.

Here's looking at you (and me)

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 17 May 2017]

Greetings again from the darkness. Oscar nominated for her screenplay to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), Robin Swicord's directorial debut of The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) was not particularly impressive. However, she bounces back nicely with this Bryan Cranston vehicle and one of the more creative scripts featuring internal dialogue that's ever hit the silver screen. Cranston is showing a knack for selecting interesting projects, and he excels here as the high-powered attorney who spontaneously decides to drop out of society in a most unusual manner.

There is a ton of social commentary on display here with targets including married life, suburban living, career pressures, and self-doubt … substantially summed up with a line from Cranston's character, "Most everyone has had the impulse to put their life on hold." As he proceeds through his new 'unshackled' and 'primal' lifestyle while observing the world unnoticed through the small window in his garage attic, much of his focus seems to be on discovering just who he is at his core, and what is the truth behind his relationship with his wife (Jennifer Garner). It's as if he is asking "What am I?" while clinging to his previous life in a voyeuristic way.

Ms. Swicord's screenplay is adapted from E.L. Doctorow's short story and it's sneaky in the way that it questions how we go about our daily life, and how one can "snap" emotionally if feeling unappreciated. It's a showcase for the other side of upper middle class white privilege, as well as suburban alienation that is so prevalent (and ignored) today. By dropping out but staying close, Cranston's character actually pays more attention to his family than he usually would if sitting next to them at the dinner table.

We are accustomed to a mid-life crisis involving a sports car, marital affair or sudden career change. It's highly unusual for someone to actually "disappear". It's at that point where the narration really shines … it's insightful, observational and thought-provoking. Beyond that, the comedic edge is laden with sadness. The story humanizes this pretty despicable guy – or at least a guy who does a pretty despicable thing. The score is in the style of a 1980's Brian DePalma movie, which just adds to the unique cinematic experience. This is one to see for Cranston's performance, as well as for Ms. Swicord's commentary on today's way of life.

Lost in the attic

[tomsview · 7/10 · 11 September 2017]

Who would have thought a movie about a man hiding in his garage spying on his family would work? However what starts out as odd and off-putting, ends up still odd but totally absorbing.

Howard Wakefield (Bryan Cranston) is a successful New York lawyer with a beautiful wife, Diana (Jennifer Garner), twin daughters and house in an upmarket suburb. Then he suddenly leaves it all behind, he vanishes, but he doesn't go far; he ends up in the attic above his garage studying the lives of his family and his neighbours. As months pass, he lives like a hermit, stealing food from garbage bins at night, but as he studies the others he actually begins to understand more about himself.

Although set in modern day, in a way the Wakefield family seem like a typical family from the 1950s; Howard Wakefield could almost be "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit". Or maybe suburban life just hasn't changed all that much despite smartphones, drones and personal trainers.

The film reminds me of a couple of others where a guy drops out of suburban life and dumps family and responsibility: "Kiss the Sky" with William Peterson and "Tom White", an Australian movie starring Colin Friels.

Unlike the others, Howard does not experience extracurricular sex; a 'new cookie' isn't on his agenda. He just seems alienated from the world that was the norm for most of his life.

"Wakefield" has a light touch but it isn't a comedy. A number of times Howard asks the audience if everybody at some time or other hasn't thought of walking away and starting over? However underlying the whole thing is the feeling that what he is doing to his family, particularly Diana, is cruel. She simply doesn't deserve it. Of course as the movie progresses Howard realises that the problems with his life are mostly of his own doing.

"Wakefield" sneaks up on you. Although the ending is tricky, it's in keeping with the rest of the movie, which is unexpected to say the least.

The ending happened with 28 minutes left in the movie

[chubbuck35 · 7/10 · 7 September 2020]

All of you griping about being cheated out of an ending are missing the entire point of the movie. This movie was meant to make you think and evaluate your own life. The true ending of the movie came with 28 minutes left to go in the film, where Howard has the following epiphany:

"If anything, I've come into my senses fully. My god, I can see it so clearly. I've constructed the whole thing. The jealousy ... ... the resentment ... ...the selfish urgency. Howard is victim. Howard is persecutor. Howard has mastered the world. That was my prison. That's what I've escaped. Leaving me where now? An outcast of cosmos. I'll tell you this. You can think whatever you like. I love my wife now as I've never loved her before..."

To me THIS was the ending and the meaning of this movie. What happens after this awakening is irrelevant-the purpose of the film fulfilled. I for one was touched deeply by the message that can only be internalized by investing 2 hours of your time and experiencing it together with Howard Wakefield, watching him realize the shallowness of his approach to life up to that point. That was the moment it all became clear...what he threw away one day because of his own selfish ego...we too can escape our own prison of self-ego-mania by letting go of what Howard did the hard way, look at our life under a new tint, and embrace what's good right now.

An amazing performance by Cranston.

I loved watching Howard's descent into madness

[OohLaLlama · 7/10 · 23 July 2017]

Howard is a successful man with a beautiful wife & twin girls. They have a beautiful home. Really, he has it all-seemingly. On his commute home one night there's a power failure. When he finally arrives home, it's dark, he's grumpy & chasing off a cheeky raccoon, he ends up in his garage attic. From there, he stands watching his family going about their 'thing' from the attic window. He does not go home..

Howard's narration takes over from here really & is necessary. He is almost hilarious in his madness but also quite devastating. You realise that Howard is actually quite a cruel man who hasn't lived his life particularly morally. Also, everything is told from Howard's perspective. There is only how he sees his wife, his children, etc

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

Okay, he carries on this voyeuristic role, scavenging & becoming a typical 'hobo' type UNTIL his place in his families life is truly challenged by his old nemesis

But the end-what the actual bleep?? I loved this film & then I hated it!!! I hated this ending. I need closure! I needed a reaction, some kind of reaction.

The other reviews here are a joke....

[omegadamwyk · 8/10 · 6 April 2019]

Every review I'm seeing for the low score is obsessed with the ending, calling it "horrible" and "lazy". They're missing the point of the entire film and shouldn't even have bothered watching. It's left open ended not out of laziness, but as an artistic choice. The point is, it's not about how his family reacted. The whole movie was about the deconstruction of Cranston's psyche. That's why the appropriate ending was about his EXPECTATIONS of their reactions. It ended with the scenarios playing out in his head, as a lot of the film featured. People who want an ending that tells you everything should see lesser movies then. It doesn't belong here. They're missing the point.

Other than the subject of the ending, which I had to point out, the film is very good. Bryan Cranston is excellent throughout, giving a vey lived-in performance that manages to feel fresh throughout. He is excellent at playing the anti-hero, the protagonist who isn't necessarily a good guy. Jennifer Garner is also very good, albeit in smaller doses. She does pull of the believability of being younger in the flashbacks though, something no amount of small budget makeup can do for Cranston. The special needs kids next door plot thread feels like the only failing of the film. It handles it fine, and they don't teach him some big lesson about himself really, but it does feel contrived as filler. But otherwise, the film serves as an all around great piece on a man's existential crisis

Weird to say the least

[dar0417 · 6/10 · 21 August 2019]

The whole time you are wondering what is this guy doing and at the end you never realize what you just watched.

Cranston is excellent, but the film itself was something of a missed opportunity

[jimbo-53-186511 · 3/10 · 14 March 2018]

Successful and wealthy litigator Howard Wakefield (Bryan Cranston) suffers a nervous breakdown and decides to hide out in the family attic for several months. During these months, Howard observes his family continuing their lives without him and as time passes by his behaviour becomes increasingly erratic and he often wonders whether he can return back to his old life (or indeed if he wants to)...

Wakefield bravely tries to tackle a rather complex issue - one of a man suffering a nervous breakdown which I suppose could be classed as a mental health issue. Howard, for me, was a rather complex character with a torrent of varying emotions - Cranston does an excellent job in trying to give some depth to his character. The issue I had is that I didn't find that the narrative had any real depth; the focus is on Howard spying on his family, but I found that the cause of his nervous breakdown was glossed over meaning that I could never identify with or really understand Howard's motivations. The film also doesn't show anything from his wife's perspective - Howard's narration gives us an idea of what she may be thinking, but more input or insight from her as a character might have made the film a tad more involving.

Other more notable flaws/issues with this film lay with believability; I found it hard to believe that Howard could manage to hide out in his attic for months on end without being spotted by his family or any of his neighbours at any point - considering how often he is roaming around outside. Also I find it hard to believe that no-one would think to look in the attic at any point to see if he was hiding out in there? He steals food and drink from his own home, but his wife doesn't notice at any point. The idea of him also surviving for so long by eating thrown away leftovers is also something of a stretch in credibility.

The main selling point with this film is Cranston; he gives the best performance by a mile and his multi-layered performance does make this film more tolerable than it otherwise would have been. Garner is OK, but she's given too little to work with to make an impression on the picture and the same can be said of the supporting cast.

Wakefield for me was a disappointment and something of a missed opportunity - the script lacked the complexity and insight necessary to make this a good character study. I do like the idea of a man looking into his own life from the outside and seeing what life is like for his family without him being around (there are actually shades of It's a Wonderful Life in this film), but with so little depth to the script I basically found myself watching Cranston spying on Garner which after a while became rather one-note and tiresome.

Fascinatingly Introspective

[themovieparadise · 9/10 · 11 July 2017]

Let's start first with Bryan Cranston's performance. When watching this movie, I think it would be easy for someone to overlook just how good he is. 85% of the movie is Cranston sitting in a room talking to himself, and yet he is able to bring such dimension and drama to it. He makes it look so easy and natural, and that's why it would be easy to overlook his performance. He absolutely carries the film, and it does not work without his ability as an actor. Jennifer Garner is also really good in this movie, however she is absolutely outshined by how brilliant Cranston is. Her role was also minute enough that really anyone could have played her character, whereas I don't think just anyone could have played Howard Wakefield. What struck me most about Wakefield was how much of a character study it was. It was actually more of a situational study. What does an average human being reduce themselves to when stripped of all their possessions? When they become entirely deprogrammed from society? This idea has been explored before, in films like Cast Away, but never quite in this way...

Bryan Cranston puts in a good performance in this study of family relaionships

[vampire_hounddog · 6/10 · 7 September 2020]

A successful New York attorney (Bryan Cranston) lives in a nice suburban home, has been married to his wife (Jennifer Garner) for 15 years and has teenage twin daughters. He thinks about the ups and downs of their relationship, loses his job and walks out on his family. Except he is not far as he is hiding in a small room above the garage spying on his family for months from a window in the garage, watching their different stages of grief.

Cranston practically carries this film alone on this parable on human relationships and family. Not short of humour, it is both an interesting and sad study that sometimes stretches credibility.

Utter disappointment

[jasarrubbo · 4/10 · 21 September 2018]

I waited and waited for an ending that would that could possibly make his animalistic behavior admirable, but it never came. VERY difficult to watch, I at least wanted so see the families reaction, but NOTHING!

A film that's different it shows life from one's own point of view, with isolation.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 14 September 2017]

"Wakefield" is a different kind of film it shows what it's like when one takes their own self out of the daily rat race of life and hides away to reflect and watch the world from their own point of view. The story is around Howard Wakefield(Bryan Cranston)a high powered attorney who has it all only one day he decides to remove himself from life and family after a breakdown of nerves and go away and live in the attic. As in his time away Howard does reflect on the past with life, choices, and family, and sees the wife away from a distant view as his love now is just sight seeing of Diana(the sexy Jennifer Garner)who's an elegant and upscale trophy black bra wearing kind of wife. Thru it all the world is now just a different take and look for Howard as he sees the reflection of light and life in the end. Overall good film that shows and proves that many should take a break and different look at life from an outsider approach as to isolate time and thoughts are many times good for the healing of the mind and soul.

Watching and waiting, and waiting, and waiting . . .

[JohnDeSando · 3 June 2017]

Bailing out on their family for an extended period of time is something universal in the remote fantasy of husbands who have an almost breakdown as they think of the responsibilities weighing on them. Robin Swicord's adaptation of E. L. Doctorow's short story Wakefield depicts in a measured and thoughtful way its titular lawyer, Howard (Bryan Cranston), hiding out for months in the attic of his garage as he watches the drama unfold of his wife (Jennifer Garner) and his two children.

Nothing big happens in this small film but his growing a beard and his diving into dumpsters. However, if you're up for it, it can induce you to think what it would be like to watch your family respond to your absence and eventually witness them learn to live without you.

As the film makes painfully apparent, they can get along perfectly well, thank you. So Howard's prevalent voice-over becomes the true conflict as he struggles with thoughts of his wife, leaving her, and the course he has now set as an absentee. Otherwise that voice-over and talking to himself seem like cheap ways to neglect showing what happens.

Although he realizes he may no longer return to the law firm because of his lengthy absence and negative thoughts about his fellow man, Howard nonetheless makes strategic observations about kindness in general and the love of his family in particular.

Cranston is aces at projecting a world-weary but successful professional who needs a time out. And his performance is the only solid reason to recommend this otherwise unsurprising little film.

Only watch for Cranston

[thelittlefamily · 7/10 · 30 April 2020]

This movie could have been much better, I gave it a 7 just because of Brian, would have been a 4 otherwise.

Psyche of an A-Hole

[iquine · 7/10 · 11 May 2019]

(Flash Review)

This man, while over-analyzing his life, does a very elaborate and demented thing, he fakes his own disappearance. A man who has two twin high school girls and married out of his league....or so he believes. This last point claws at his inner self. One day on his way home from his normal job and normal life (upper middle class) he doesn't come home and doesn't answer his phone when his wife calls. He hides upstairs in the loft over his garage and watches his family through the window for a night and then two. When will he come down? What will his family do? Will he resolve his inner turmoil? This was a weird movie. As a character study, it poetically went through his emotional state and why he made this decision. While nicely told and acted by Cranston, it became a little redundant and could have used more dashes of drama. An odd and somber story with an ending that one can argue cheats the viewer.

Hiding close

[sergelamarche · 7/10 · 18 May 2021]

This is unusual. A sort of insane mid-life crisis that is not drug or money dependant. We get to know what is inside of the guy and the family and the other guy and the special neighbours. It is hilarious at times and so ridiculous. But it get slightly darker toward the end, instead of silly.

Its my kind of contemplating.

[havoke-74121 · 9/10 · 3 December 2020]

You can talk about how misleading the narrator is, how slow paced it is, but for me it creates a meditative character study, that actually relishes how sincerely flawed our protagonist is.

Enlightened but irresponsible

[thecure-1 · 6/10 · 28 May 2017]

Yes, as others commented, the movie is superbly done and Cranston is as always a fantastic actor. The problem I had with this movie and its premise is the same I have whenever people introvert and wander into themselves and leave their surroundings: it may be sometimes healthy and prove certain independence but it is totally self-absorbed and selfish. Howard Wakefield may be "cool" by freeing himself from all his suburban self but he still depends on his house and its leftovers, he becomes a parasite where he once was a provider. And there is no consideration at all for the pain he may have caused those around him. This is the problem I have with his withdrawal... And when he returns he expects to be welcomed as a hero, when, in my mind, he betrayed and abandoned his loved ones.

An enjoyable movie, with a disappointing ending

[jonyrowe · 4/10 · 29 November 2017]

While Bryan Cranstons casting and an intriguing hide in the garage plot is largely enjoyable, the climax is disappointing.

We watch as Cranston fails to return home, hides in the garage and watches his family as a missing person.

When he does finally walk back through the Door, the film ends. Very disappointing, how did he explain himself, was he accepted back into the arms of his wife and children? Who knows..

Is this just a ruse for a sequel, I think not, but it left me deflated and wanting to know what happened next.. Avoid.

Brilliant Performance by Bryan Cranston

[p-k-adey · 8/10 · 7 January 2017]

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Bryan Cranston's character devolve, much as his character in Breaking Bad did. He does a wonderful job showing us what made his character do what he did. Jennifer Garner is great as his wife. Beverly D'Angelo is amusing as Jennifer Garner's mother. There are dark moments, but also periods of levity. Bryan Cranston has to carry the majority of the film as we see everything through his eyes or as he interprets it. It is a unique way to show a person as they go through a possible break down. Who among us hasn't wanted to walk away from our life at some point? And haven't we wondered if we'd be missed and by whom? A must see film!

interesting

[grafxman · 7/10 · 13 February 2019]

Not a great movie but an OK movie. It kept my interest throughout. Unfortunately there's not enough Jennifer Garner which was my main reason for watching it. The entire movie is centered on Bryan Cranston and he, an excellent actor, keeps things interesting. Sadly the movie does not have satisfactory ending. I think they really dropped the ball there.

Lost time

[NicolaTesla · 4/10 · 10 December 2017]

This move got me intrigued for a while and I specifically waiting and avoided to read or see any reviews because I wanted to experience this movie from a blank slate. when we got the end credits of this movie I was left with a feeling of '2-hours lost i'm never getting back' What a waste of time and talent. I can sit for hours and watch Bryan Cranston act but this whole execution of an attempt to make a movie was a total miss by it's creators. Cranston is amazing to see and hear and to see him pull this sloppy story and script off with the class he brings is a a miracle. The makeup was terrible and inconsistent. The music score didn't know what it wanted to be (minimalistic, adventurous, Clint-Eastwoodesk Piano style, Jazz, Noir..) it's all over the place. The Down Syndrome actors where a disgrace to watch at, the director or editor or casting agent should be ashamed for the way these characters are brought to the screen and the way the are portrait as story filler / forced-endearing tool. There's more then smiling, pointing and repeating names and words! And the most disappointing thing of it all. The ending! I understand you want to play off the whole 'open end' feeling, but this is just bad bad writing and cinematic execution. We do not need any more discomfort at the end, it's been enough of that sitting through it all.

Doesn't quite work

[statman122 · 6/10 · 24 November 2018]

An interesting idea that just doesn't connect like I thought it would. Cranston, as always, is brilliant. In fact, he is the only reason I kept watching this. It would probably be a 4 without him.